Thursday, October 25, 2012

So the next question is this – could
vegetarianism be implied from or be more consistent with the Buddha’s teachings
in general?

The cardinal virtue of Buddhism is
respect for life. This is embodied in the first Precept; not to harm living
beings. I use the word ‘harm’ rather than ‘kill’ because on many occasions the
Buddha mentioned that we should not just abstain from killing but also from cruelty and violence. For
example, he said that someone is unrighteous (adhamma) in body if they “kill living beings, are murderous,
bloody-handed, given to blows and violence and are without mercy.” (Majjhima
Nikaya I,286). It is clear that killing is against the first Precept but so is pulling a
cat’s tail, flogging a horse or punching someone in the face, although these
actions would be less grave than killing. So this is the first point – (1) Both cruelty to and killing living
beings is against the first Precept.

That true adherence to the Precept goes
beyond the individual’s direct physical involvement in harming or killing is
clear from the Buddha’s instructions that someone who takes the Dhamma
seriously should “not kill, encourage (samadapati)
others to kill, approve of (samamunno
hoti) killing, or speak in praise of (vannam
bhasati) killing” (Anguttara Nikaya V,306). Here the Buddha says that one
should take into account even the indirect and distant implications of one’s
actions and speech. So this is the second point – (2) Trying toinfluence and
encourageothers not to harm or kill
living beings and being kind to them oneself would be consistent with the first
Precept.

As is often pointed out, the Precepts
have two dimensions, firstly to stop doing wrong (varitta) and then to actually do good (caritta, Majjhima Nikaya III,46). In the case of the first Precept
its varitta aspect would be avoiding harming
and killing while its caritta aspect
would be doing what one could to nurture, protect and promote life. This is
expressed in the Buddha’s full explanation of the Precept when he said; “Avoiding
the taking of life, he dwells refraining from taking life. Putting aside the
stick and the sword he lives with care, kindness and compassion for living
beings.” (Digha Nikaya I,4).

Again and again throughout his teachings
the Buddha asked us to empathize with others, to feel for others. “Put yourself
in the place of others and neither kill nor cause killing.” (Dhammapada 129.
“Think, ‘As am I so are others. As are others so am I’ and neither kill nor
cause killing.” (Sutta Nipata 705). This then is the third point – (3) Feeling and acting with kindness and
compassion towards living beings is an integral part of the first Precept.

The Buddha’s teachings of respect for
life can be clearly seen in several of his other teachings as well, Right
Livelihood (samma ajiva) being but
one example of this. The Buddha gave as examples of wrong means of livelihood
the selling (and/or manufacturing?) of weapons, human beings, flesh (mamsa vanijja), alcohol and poisons
(Anguttara Nikaya III, 208). Although he
did not specifically mention it, it is easy to see that the reason why these
livelihoods are unethical is because they involve at some level harming or
killing living things. So this is the fourth point – (4) Not harming or killing living beings and being kind to them, is an
integral part of the whole Dhamma, not just the first Precept.

Another of the Buddha’s important
teachings is that things do not come into existence randomly or through the
will of a divine being but through a specific cause or web of causes. The most
well-known example of this is where the Buddha describes the conditions that
give rise to suffering (Digha Nikaya II,55). However, there are other examples
of dependent arising – the sequence of causes that give rise to enlightenment
(Samyutta Nikaya I,29-32) and to social conflict (Sutta Nipata 862-77), etc.

Using this same principle, we can
clarify issues related to meat eating. Farmers do not raise cows or chickens
for fun; they do it because they can make a living by selling them to the
abattoirs. Likewise abattoirs don’t slaughter animals for fun, they do it to
make a profit. They sell their meat to the processors, who sell it to the local
supermarkets or butchers who in turn sell it to the consumers. Any reasonable
person would agree that there is a clear
trajectory, a discernible causal link between the farmer or the abattoir and
the consumer. It may be a distant link but it is there. Put in its simplest
terms, people would not slaughter animals if other people did not purchase
meat. So this is the fifth point – (5)
Eating meat is causally related to the harming or killing of living beings and
thus is connected to some degree to breaking the first Precept.

Now let us consider the implications of
these five points. Avoiding the complexities of the modern food processing and
production industries for the time being, let us look at the simple version of
it as it would have existed at the time of the Buddha and how it may still
exist in some developing countries and perhaps even in some rural areas in the
West.

Let’s say that during the Buddha’s time
some monks were invited to the house of a devout family for a meal and that
they were served, amongst other things, meat. In accordance with the Buddha’s
instructions in the Jivaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya II,369) they ate the meat
because they had not seen, heard or even suspected that their hosts had gone to
someone and specifically asked them to slaughter an animal so that it could be
fed to the monks. While eating their meal these monks would have had no bloody
intentions, no murderous anger, no perverse fascination in seeing a creature
have its throat cut. It is likely that they gave no thought whatsoever to where
the meat came from or what was involved in procuring it. From the narrowest,
most literal, strictly direct interpretation of it, the first Precept would not
have been broken.

But this narrow perspective raises, at
least in my mind, quite a few troubling questions:

(A) Firstly, as we have seen above, all
the evidence shows the Buddha wanted the Precept to be interpreted in a broad
manner and to have all its implications taken into account.

(B) If the monks did not directly break
their rules, maybe the lay people broke the first Precept in that they
“encouraged others to kill, approved of killing or spoke in praise of killing” when
they purchased the meat.

(C) Maybe the monks should have given some thought to the implications and consequences
of their actions. Did not the Buddha say; “Before
doing something, while doing it and after having done it one should reflect,
‘Will this action lead to my own or others’ detriment?’ ” (Majjhima Nikaya
I,416).

(D) Although they may not have seen,
heard or suspected that an animal was killed specifically for them, the monks
must have been aware that it was killed for people who eat meat, and that in
eating meat they would fall into this category.

(E) Even if their role in the death of a
creature is only distant and indirect, genuine metta would urge one not to be involved in killing even to that
extent. The Buddha said; “Just as a
mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, like this one
should develop an unbounded mind towards all beings and love to all the world.
One should develop an unbounded mind, above, below and across, without
obstruction…” (Sutta Nipata 149-50). He also said we should think like this; “I have love for footless creatures. I have
love for the two-footed. I have love for the four-footed and I have love for
many-footed creatures.” (Anguttara Nikaya II,72). Saying “It wasn’t killed
specifically for me and while I ate it my mind was filled with love” does not
sound like the deep, kindly and pervasive love the Buddha asked us to develop. It sounds more like a love restricted by
rather narrow concerns.

(F) In a very important discourse in the
Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha praisedthose
who care about others as much as they care about themselves. He said; “There
are these four types of people found in the world. What four? He who is
concerned with neither his own good nor the good of others, he who is concerned
with the good of others but not his own, he who is concerned with his own good
but not the good of others and he who is concerned with both his own good and
the good of others. Of these four he who
is concerned with his own good and the good of others is the chief, the best,
the topmost, the highest, the supreme.” (Anguttara Nikaya .II,94). And a little
further along the Buddha askedthe
question; “And how is one concerned with
both his own good and the good of others?” In part of the answer to this
question he said; “He does not kill or encourage others to kill.” (Anguttara
Nikaya .II,99). We saw before that there is a casual link between killing
animals and purchasing their meat. Quite simply, slaughter houses would not
slaughter animals and butchers and supermarkets would not stock meat if people
did not buy it. Therefore, when we purchase meat or even eat it when it is served
to us, we are encouraging killing, and thus not acting out of concern for
others, as the Buddha asked us to do.

The conclusions of all this seems to me
to be compelling - that intelligent, mature Dhamma practice would require vegetarianism, or at least reducing one's meat consumption.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Vegetarianism is the practice of having
a meat-free diet. There are different types of vegetarianism, e.g.
lacto-vegetarians will eat dairy products but not eggs, and vegans will eat no
products derived from animals. The first evidence for any type of vegetarianism
comes from ancient Greece and India. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras (570-495
BCE) advocated vegetarianism and at around the same time in India, Mahavira,
the founder of Jainism, was also advocating vegetarianism. Despite popular
perceptions to the contrary, the Buddha, a younger contemporary of Mahavira,
was not a vegetarian and did not explicitly insist on its practice in any of
his teachings.

Many arguments are used to support
vegetarianism – the health argument (a meat diet causes various diseases), the
biological argument (humans are not naturally carnivorous), the economic
argument (animal husbandry is an inefficient form of food production), and the
humane argument (eating meat requires killing animals which is cruel). Some of
these arguments are rather weak, others less so. But from the point of view of
Buddhist ethics the only one of these arguments that has to be considered is
the last one. Does the Pali Tipitaka, the earliest record of the Buddha’s
teachings, contain anything suggesting that Buddhists should be vegetarian?

There is no place in either the Sutta,
the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma Pitakaswhere
the Buddha says his disciples, monastic or lay, should avoid eating meat.
Supporters of Buddhist vegetarianism like Philip Kapleau Roshi (To Cherish All Life, 1986) have claimed
that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism but that all references to it were
deleted from the sacred scriptures by meat-loving monks in later centuries.
There is no evidence whatsoever of this having been done and this argument can
be dismissed out of hand.

There are several places in the
scriptures where the Buddha is described as having eaten meat. Anguttara Nikaya
III,49 mentions that the Buddha was once served sukara mamsa with jujube fruit. This term can be translated with
certainty as sukara = pig or boar, mamsa = meat or flesh. In another place
it distinctly says that a man sent his servant to the market to buy meat so it
could be prepared and served to the Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya IV,187). Yet
another text mentions in passing that a group of people “boiled porridge and
rice, made soup and minced meat” (mamsani
kottenti) while preparing a feast for the Buddha and his monks (Vinaya I,
239). Once some men slaughtered a cow, cooked it and then one of them gave “the
best cuts of the cooked meat” (mamse
pakke varamamsani) to a nun who subsequently offered it to the Buddha (Vinaya III,208). These and other references to the
Buddha eating meat are incidental and only mentioned as an aside.

One of the criticisms the Jains directed
towards the Buddha was that he ate meat. “Many Jains went through the town,
through the main roads and side streets, the alleys and the lanes, waving their
arms and shouting, ‘GeneralSiha has this very day slaughtered a large
creature to feed it to the monk Gotama and he is going to eat it knowing that
it was slaughtered specifically for him.’ ” (Anguttara Nikaya IV,187). In this
incident the Jains were trying to discredit or embarrass the Buddha for eating
meat, which suggests that there was a feeling in India at the time that monks
at least should be vegetarian. But this idea could have only been in its
infancy because the Buddha became widely respected despite the Jain criticism
of him on this issue. And he was not the only one. We read of a particular
ascetic who was highly esteemed by the people of Vesali despite having taken a
vow to consume only meat and alcohol (Digha Nikaya III,9).

One of several Jain
objections to eating meat and the Brahmanical idea that it was acceptable to
eat certain types of meat, was that it make one unclean, not just physically
unclean but ritually or spiritually unclean too. Such ideas are very widespread
even today and many religions teach that certain foods have an impurity apart
from any actual dirt or bacteria they may contain. Since its very beginning
Buddhism has rejected the idea of ritual impurity, maintaining that it is
immoral thought, speech and actions that make one impure. The Amagandha Sutta
says; “Being rough, devoid of kindness, back-biting, careless of friends,
heartless, arrogant, mean, sharing with no one, this is impure food, not the
eating of meat. To be immoral, refuse to repay one’s debts, betray others,
cheat in business and create divisions amongst people, this is impure food, not
the eating of meat. To kill living beings, steal, harm others, be immoral,
cruel, hard and disrespectful, this is impure food, not the eating of meat.”
(Sutta Nipata 244-6).

There are several
places in the Vinaya, the rules for Buddhist monks and nuns, where eating meat
is mentioned or implied, for example where it says particular types of meat
such as lion, snake and hyena, should not be consumed, implying that other
types can be (Vinaya I,218-8). It also recommends meat broth as a medicine
(Vinaya I,206). In the section on medicine in the Vinaya it says that monks are
allowed to take the oil, fat and tallow of fish, crocodiles, pigs, bears and
other animals for medicinal reasons (Vinaya I,200). Monks were even allowed to
eat raw meat and drink blood (Vin.I,202-3), which apparently was believed to
cure possession byevil spirits.

However, it would seem that the first
evidence of a move by Buddhist towards vegetarianism also comes from the
Vinaya. Most scholars agree that much of the Vinaya dates from some time after
the Buddha so some of the things it says may not necessarily reflect what was
believed or done during his time. In the Vinaya, Devadatta is said to have
demanded that vegetarianism be made compulsory for monks and nuns. “For as long
as life lasts, let them not eat fish or meat (maccha mamsam). Whoever does so would be stained by a fault.”
(Vinaya II,197). The Buddha is depicted as refusing to make this a rule. Devadatta
is always portrayed in Buddhist literature as a villain. This story suggests
that within perhaps a century of the Buddha’s passing some monks were
advocatingvegetarianism although the
Sangha as a whole was against it being made compulsory.The Vinaya also mentions what were called maghatadisva, certain days of the month
when animals were not slaughtered and meat was not available in the markets
(Vinaya I,217). The Jataka likewise mentions maghatadisva and adds that they would be announced by the beat of a
drum (Jataka IV,115). Were these non-killing days a result of a general unease
about killing animals, or due to the influence of Buddhism, or of Jainism? We
don’t know.

After this the next evidence of a Buddhist
move towards vegetarianism comes from the edicts of the great Buddhist emperor
Asoka Maurya. In an edict issued in 257 BCE he said; “Formerly, in the kitchen
of the king, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make
curry. But with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two
peacocks and a deer, are killed and the deer not always. And in time, not even
these three creatures will be killed.” This edict seems to reflect well the
early Buddhist attitude to vegetarianism – it is a good thing, so we cut down
our consumption of meat and in time we’ll get around to phasing it out. Later,
in 243 BCE, Asoka issued another edict banning the slaughter, branding and castrating
of domestic animals on certain days of each month. In this same edict he also
announced a ban on the hunting of certain wild animals and the setting up of
forest reserves where no hunting was to be allowed. After this we get no
evidence of Buddhist vegetarianism for several centuries.

A Jain work, the Suyagada (2nd century CE), has this interesting though
spurious critique of the Buddhist idea
that only intentional actions (cetana)
create kamma and therefore unintentionally eating meat, even human flesh, would
be acceptable. “If a savage puts a
man on a spit and roasts him, mistaking him for something else, he would not be
guilty of murder. In fact, the meat would be fit for the Buddha to feast on.” (Suy.2,6,27).
This critique implies that at this time Buddhists were eating meat.

It is commonly assumed that early
Buddhism did not teach vegetarianism while Mahayana did. However, this is a
perception that needs to be examined more closely. Of the hundreds of Mahayana sutras only a handful discuss vegetarianism, the main ones
being the HastikaksyaSutra, MahamegaSutra, Angulimaliya Sutra, Nirvana Sutra,the Brahmajala Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra. It is not easy to
date any of these sutras but all of
them were probably composed after the 2nd century CE with parts
being added in later centuries. Of these sutras
the one that most strongly advocates vegetarianism is the Lankavatara Sutra. It offers a series of arguments in favor of
vegetarianism, some of them sound, others rather puerile, for example, that you
will emit a bad odor if you eat meat. However, the vehemence with which these
arguments are presented suggests that many Buddhists at that time were not
vegetarian. It is only necessary to
argue vigorously against something when there are those who disagree with or
oppose it. It is also interesting to point out that while the Nirvana Sutra condemns meat eating it
also says that one is justified in killing people in order to protect monastic
property, a weird contradiction of the type still found in the thinking of some
strong proponents of vegetarianism.

When the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang
(602–664) was in India he made careful and extensive notes on the beliefs and
practices of Indian Buddhists but makes no mention of them being vegetarian. He
noted that people ate meat and that the most important thing was not whether
one was vegetarian or not but what kind of meat one ate. Those who ate beef or
animals considered impure (dogs,
monkeys, pigs, donkeys) were treated as
outcasts. About a century after Hsuan Tsang another Chinese monk, I-Tsing,
stayed in India for several decades and wrote a detailed account of Indian
Buddhist monastic rules and regulations. He too made no mention of
vegetarianism. The literature of Tantric or Vajrayana Buddhism, dating from the
7th century CE, often advocates a meat diet. Tantric practitioners
even offered meat to the various deities they worshipped. Both Hindu and Buddhist
tantras even taught what was called the Five Ms (pancamakara), rituals that could include consuming alcohol, eating
meat, fish, parched grain and having sex.

It is clear from all this that some Indian
Buddhists were vegetarian while others, probably the majority, were not. During
the 10th century Jains were still attacking Buddhists for eating
meat.In his Darsanasara, written around this time, Devasena launchedascathing attack on Buddhists monksfor considering anything placed in their begging bowls to be pure, even
meat (Prakrit Sahitya Ka Itihas
p.319). Two hundred years later another Jain writer, Hemacandra, denounced
Buddhist monks as gluttons incapable ofgenuine austerity because they made no distinction between lawful and
unlawful food. By ‘unlawful food’ he meant meat.

What about Indian
society in general? The evidence shows that from its very beginning Jainism was
strongly vegetarian and has been so ever since. There is no evidence that
Brahmanism, the main religion during the Buddha’s time, taught vegetarianism.
Vedic sacrifices in which animals were slaughtered were still being practiced
and are frequently mentioned in the Tipitaka (e.g. Anguttara Nikaya I,66;
II,42; IV,41; etc). It records one particular sacrifice conducted by a brahman
named Uggatasarira during which “five hundred bulls, five hundred steers and
numerous heifers, goats and rams were brought to the sacrificial post for
slaughter” (A.IV,41). The meat of sacrificed animals was eaten by the
officiating priests afterward.

The Arthasastra
(3rd–2nd century BCE) says that that the government
should appoint a superintendent of slaughterhouses, probably to make sure they
were efficiently run (As.II,26-7). It also recommends that anyone killing a
calf, bull or milch cow be fined 50 panas,
not because this was considered cruel but because it was economically
undesirable (As.II,26-11).

The Manusmrti,
the most authoritative Hindu law book (2nd century BCE – 2ndcentury CE), mentions that meat is a suitable
offering for the ancestors, that the sacred scriptures should not be recited
immediately after eatingmeat, and that
during times ofhardship it is even
acceptable to eat dog meat, usually thought of as exceptionally impure. One
whole section of the Manusmrti (5,27-57)
lays down the rules concerning the procuring, preparing and consuming of fish
and flesh. The justification for meat-eating is summed up in these words; “The
eater is not defiled by eating living beings suitable for eating, even if he
eats them day after day. For the Creator himself made both the eater and the
living beings to eat.”(5,30).

The Kama
Sutra (3rd cent CE?) points out that alcohol and dog meat
increase a man’s virility but then adds, somewhat halfheartedly, that a
circumspect man would nonetheless take neither because they are impure. It also
gives recipes for aphrodisiacs, many of them including animal flesh and organs.
So once again we have an ambiguous attitude towards consuming meat.

Both the two great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharataoften refer to
eating meat as normal and uncontroversial, as indeed it was. In his detailed
study of everyday life as depicted in the Ramayana
Ananda Guruge writes; “The Aryans of ancient India were not altogether
vegetarians. Their diet was a mixed one; they ate fish as was offered to
Bharata and his party by Guha. Meat too was consumed quite widely. Not only did
Rama say that animals are killed by men for their flesh but he also killed many
animals – deer, wild boar, antelope, etc., - for food during his sojourn in the
forest. Meat was eaten with relish and a verse which describes a meal of Rama
and Sita states; ‘He sat on a rock
tempting Sita with meat (saying) this is pure, this is tasty and this is well
cooked by fire.’ In Bharadvaja’s hermitage Bharata’s army was supplied with
venison, mutton, pork and flesh of the peacock and the snipe. Likewise, Kumbhakarna consumed large
quantities of venison, beef and pork and drank blood. Although the Vanaras are
generally depicted as vegetarians, the Brahmans were actually not. The concept
that ‘a purely vegetarian diet is an indication of spiritual progress and an
advanced culture’ is a later development in India. Even ascetic Brahmans were
not strict vegetarians. Although their usual fare consisted of vegetables, they
did not abstain from meat-eating as a principle of either religious or social
significance. In fact, Agastya is represented as eating rams and he says, ‘I am
able to eat comfortably even one whole ram at a Sraddha ceremony.’ There seems
to have been no ban on meat-eating by Brahmans even at the time of Bhavabhuti
for his Uttararamacarita depicts
Vasistha as eating a tawny calf. Further, Valin’s statement specifically
mentions the animals whose flesh could be eaten by Brahmans.” (The Society of the Ramayana, 1960,
p.147-8).

In the chapter on food the Sushruta Samhita (1st–4th
century CE) recommends all kinds of fish, bird and animal flesh thereby showing that meat eating wasacceptableduring that period. This and a great deal of other evidence shows that
like Buddhists, Hindus were primarily meat eaters, although there was
alwayssomein favor ofvegetarianism. After the Gupta period Hindu text like some of the Puranas and the literature of the
Bhagavatas start teaching abstaining from meat. It was probably only after the
9th, 10th and 11th centuries that
vegetarianism started to become widespread in India. The reasons for this may
have been developments in theology and philosophy, changing economic
conditions, or the desire of Indians to distinguish themselves from Muslims
invaders.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

You reveal yourself by
the friends you seek,
By the manner in which you speak,
By how you use your leisure time,
By the use you make of dollar and dime.

You reveal yourself by the things you wear,
By the spirit in which your burdens you bear,
By the type of things at which you laugh,
By the records you play on your phonograph.

You reveal yourself by the way you walk,
By the things of which you like to talk,
By the manner in which endure defeat,
By so simple a thing as how you eat.
By the books you choose from the library shelf,
By these things and more, you reveal yourself.

Starting next week I
will serialize my book on vegetarianism and Buddhism.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Norodom Sihanouk,
former king of Cambodia died today (15th Oct). Often described as ‘mercurial’
he would also have to be called a survivor, having emerged in one piece from
his country’s turbulent history, abdicating twice, and living long enough to be
almost the last of Asia’s post-independent leaders. Here are some pictures of him
taken by Howard
Sochurekin the early 50s.

About Me

I am not the 5th or 9th reincarnation of a great lama, I have not recived any empowerments or initiations, I am not the holder of any lineage, I am yet to attain any of the jhanas, I am not a widely respected teacher, I am not a stream enterer (at least I don't feel like one)and I do not have many disciples. Nontheless, you may find some of my observations and musings interesting. I have been a Buddhist monk for 32 years and am the spiritual advisor to the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore.